WWII Germany's Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop was widely despised in diplomatic circles as well as by many leading Nazis of the day. Most considered him a vain, ill-mannered, unintelligent opportunist: Benito Mussolini's FM Count Ciano quipped "You only have to look at the shape of his head to see that he has a small brain."
Yet the charmless dullard was a favorite of Hitler's... and for one simple reason: the Fuhrer always looked well upon those who proposed the most radical solution to a given problem, even if not adopted as policy: Ribbentrop deduced this early-on, and exploited it to the fullest. Seems the boss had major transformations to bring about, and with some sense of urgency...
Today in 2011 America, political observers struggle mightily to get a grip on the fuzzy logic and towering hypocrisy in Obama purporting he was compelled to attack government assets in Libya -even if producing a stalemate insufficient to remove Gaddafi from power- in order to spare civilian lives and "Mosques"... yeah, he said that.
Moving to protect the lives of Egyptians, Kurds, Iranians, Yemenis, Syrians, Bahrainis, or any oppressed Christians and their burning churches throughout the perpetually-barbaric Middle East is different, somehow... if you're left standing there scritching yer cranium, you're surely not the only one.
Moving to protect the lives of Egyptians, Kurds, Iranians, Yemenis, Syrians, Bahrainis, or any oppressed Christians and their burning churches throughout the perpetually-barbaric Middle East is different, somehow... if you're left standing there scritching yer cranium, you're surely not the only one.
But much as Occams' Razor instructs us to follow the most simple/obvious explanation to any mystery -that which assumes the least, positive or negative- let us apply Obam's Razor -'what's the most radical explanation'- to bring forth some needed answers regarding recent US bombing of Libyan government forces.
As for minimizing "assumptions", no worries: after watching this power-drunk regime shred American society for two years straight now, anybody with a pulse and at least one functioning eye and/or ear can tell you that extending Team Obama the benefit of the doubt is assuming way, way too much- odds far better on the dark side.
For example, what's the most sinister Leftist rationale imaginable for the Dems' insane 2008-2009 federal spending orgy? Seems only the most radical squares with reality: a stealth Cloward-Piven strategy. Sadly, much like 1940's Germany, America now finds itself saddled with our own racially-obsessed, narcissistic megalomaniac... and he's trying to ram-through sweeping changes in a real big rush, too.
As for minimizing "assumptions", no worries: after watching this power-drunk regime shred American society for two years straight now, anybody with a pulse and at least one functioning eye and/or ear can tell you that extending Team Obama the benefit of the doubt is assuming way, way too much- odds far better on the dark side.
For example, what's the most sinister Leftist rationale imaginable for the Dems' insane 2008-2009 federal spending orgy? Seems only the most radical squares with reality: a stealth Cloward-Piven strategy. Sadly, much like 1940's Germany, America now finds itself saddled with our own racially-obsessed, narcissistic megalomaniac... and he's trying to ram-through sweeping changes in a real big rush, too.
Monday I found myself in rare agreement with Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) on matters of foreign policy when he said "we don't know who these people are" in Benghazi.
But does Obama? If he does, is he quietly supporting Islamist forces while he schmoozes political donors and scarfs still more lobster in Manhattan?
And are war supporters Bill Kristol and John Kerry really this naive...?
The unsettling truth is that the rebel leadership is dubious at best- and with this habitually dishonest White House now admitting they've detected "flickers" of an Al Qaeda presence in Libya... what's the reality?
What if Gaddafi is right when he asserts AQ has had a significant hand in the uprising? The head of NATO seems to think so- maybe it's a good thing the Devil-We-Know is still chasing them off the battlefield until we find out just what -and who- we're bargaining for here.
IMHO, it is possible if not probable that AQ are there, and it's hard to imagine US intelligence -and thus the President- not knowing it: Al Qaeda publicly endorsed the rebels, and reportedly already made off with a jackpot of Libyan surface-to-air missiles in the opening days of the uprising (but that's cool, now that we're on the same side and all...)
But does Obama? If he does, is he quietly supporting Islamist forces while he schmoozes political donors and scarfs still more lobster in Manhattan?
And are war supporters Bill Kristol and John Kerry really this naive...?
 |
| The Spectator (UK) |
What if Gaddafi is right when he asserts AQ has had a significant hand in the uprising? The head of NATO seems to think so- maybe it's a good thing the Devil-We-Know is still chasing them off the battlefield until we find out just what -and who- we're bargaining for here.
IMHO, it is possible if not probable that AQ are there, and it's hard to imagine US intelligence -and thus the President- not knowing it: Al Qaeda publicly endorsed the rebels, and reportedly already made off with a jackpot of Libyan surface-to-air missiles in the opening days of the uprising (but that's cool, now that we're on the same side and all...)
Is Obama aiding and abetting a stealth
Islamist agenda in the Middle East?
Islamist agenda in the Middle East?
Just look at how it's going down- and you tell me:
 |
| -Filanofiles |
"Mosques destroyed," the president said, supported his argument for air strikes. Churches are being destroyed daily in the Muslim world, but the U.S. does not intervene...
As a senator, Barack Obama had no interest in preventing Saddam Hussein from filling mass graves. He vocally opposed our going into Iraq. That was then...
As a senator, Barack Obama had no interest in preventing Saddam Hussein from filling mass graves. He vocally opposed our going into Iraq. That was then...
It is surely laudable for the U.S. to stand against massacres. Now, however, it seems that the leader of the Libyan rebels is one who fought against the U.S. in Afghanistan. Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi was taken prisoner in Pakistan. He also recruited two dozen jihadis to fight the Americans in Iraq...
Should we be supporting people who have Americans' blood on their hands? Intelligence estimates tell us that nearly one in five of the jihadis we fought against in Iraq came from Libya.
President Obama's speech to the nation raised as many questions as it answered. Members of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs were not consulted, but the Arab League was.
So was the UN. This is the same UN that applauded Gaddafi's wild rants in New York just last fall. It is the same body that elected Libya to its Human Rights Council....
It was surely shocking to millions of Americans when Barack Obama bowed to Saudi King Abdullah.
Even more shocking, however, was Mr. Obama's selection of Egypt's Al Azhar Mosque as the venue for his 2009 speech to what he called "the Muslim world." The Al-Azhar mosque in Cairo, says Dr. Zuhdi Jassser, a moderate American Muslim, "has served as a platform for 'Islamism' around the world, hatching the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 20th century."
So now we have a U.S. intervention in Libya that can only benefit rebels with known ties to jihadists and whose leaders have killed Americans. This all comes from an administration that refuses even to mention radical Islam as a possible threat to our nation...
Libya, Gaddafi, Qaddafi, Ghadafi, rebel leadership, Al Qaida, Al Qaeda, remove Gaddafi from power, Al Qaeda in Libya, NATO, Obama Occams' Razor Al Qaeda in Libya,XXX Gaddafi, Qaddafi, Ghadafi, Al Qaida, Libya, Gaddafi, Qaddafi, Ghadafi, rebel leadership, Al Qaida, Al Qaeda, remove Gaddafi from power Al Qaeda in Libya,